2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff, which was a shareholder of the △△△△△ corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△△△△”), entered into a share sale contract with 115,900 shares for the Plaintiff, 115,90 shares for the Aa, bb 58,600 shares for the Plaintiff, db 33,00 shares for each of the △△△△△△△△ 221,00 shares for each of the above shares with ccc, e, e, f, ggg (hereinafter referred to as “cc, etc.”) on January 2, 2009 with c, e, e, f, and gg (hereinafter referred to as the “first sale contract”) and entered into a transfer of ownership of 44,20 shares for each of the above shares with c,400 shares for each of the above shares in the name of c,400 shares for e, f, and gg.

B. On January 2, 2009, while the Plaintiff, which was a shareholder of △△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△”), entered into a share purchase agreement with cC to transfer 52,000 shares, e, e, f, and gg each of the above shares to cC each of 26,00 shares, while holding 52,00 shares, aa to 52,00 shares, bb to 65,00 shares, and cC, etc. in the name of cC, etc.

C. On August 5, 2010, e and gg concluded a share sales contract with the Plaintiff to transfer 46,410 shares (ee 44,200 shares, g 2,210 shares) of △△△△ (hereinafter “third sale contract of this case”) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff entered into a transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff, △△△△△, which contains the content that the Plaintiff acquired 46,410 shares of the above company in the name of the Plaintiff, submitted to the head of ○ Tax Office a detailed statement on the change of shares in 2010, including the content that the Plaintiff acquired 46,410 shares of the above company

D. In addition, on August 5, 2010, cc and e concluded a contract for the purchase and sale of shares (cc 1,300 shares, eee 26,00 shares) to the Plaintiff again transfer 27,30 shares of △△△△△ (c 1,30 shares, ee 26,00 shares) to the Plaintiff, and according to the transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff in the register of shareholders, △△△△△△ submitted to the head of ○○ office a detailed statement of the change of shares in 2010, which includes the fact that the Plaintiff acquired 27,30 shares of the above company in the same year.

E. According to the ○○○ regional tax office’s investigation of the above change of shares △△△△ and △△△△△△△, the Defendant, upon the cancellation of the instant 1, 2, and ccc sales contract concluded with the Plaintiff, etc. due to nonperformance of obligation of c, etc., should return to the extent of the number of shares owned by the Plaintiff, a seller, aaa, bbb, and ddd, which were the subject of the instant 1, 2, notwithstanding the fact that: (a) upon the conclusion of the instant 3 sales contract, the instant 1,560 shares of the △△△△△△△ and 14,30 shares of the △△△△△△△△△△△ and 14,30 shares were to be returned to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant 1, 200 shares”) and (b) each of the instant 2, 350 shares were to be disposed of to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2010.

F. On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal. On January 17, 2013, the Director of the Tax Tribunal re-examineed whether title trust is established with the Plaintiff, and, in the case of title trust, he/she decided to rectify the tax base and tax amount by evaluating the supplementary market price of the instant shares according to the net asset value as of August 5, 2010.

On March 21, 2013, ○○ regional tax office conducted an investigation in accordance with the above decision, and notified the Defendant of the results of re-audit that the initial investigation related to the instant disposition was justifiable.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 4, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s entry on the register of △△△△ and △△△△△△ is a result of unilaterally stealing the Plaintiff’s name with the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression and the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression. As such, the instant disposition on which gift tax was imposed on the Plaintiff by applying the said statutory provisions is unlawful, even though it is not subject to the deemed donation under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “Act”) premised on the unity between the actual owner and the nominal owner.

2) Even if the instant shares under the Plaintiff’s name constitute title trust, the value of the instant shares is determined by Presidential Decree No. 22579, Dec. 30, 2010.

In the case of an assessment by supplementary assessment methods pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the evaluation base date shall be calculated. Thus, in the case of an assessment by supplementary assessment methods, the value of the relevant corporation as of August 5, 2010, which is the date of deemed donation, according to the net asset value of △△△△ and △△△△△△, the date of deemed donation, notwithstanding the assessment of the value of the instant stocks at the time of August 5, 2010, the Defendant calculated the deemed donation amount by evaluating the instant stocks

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether title trust is held

A) The provision on deemed donation under Article 45-2 (1) of the Act shall apply in cases where a real owner and a nominal owner enter into a change of title in the name of the nominal owner under an agreement or communication with respect to property which requires the transfer or exercise of rights, and thus, where a change of title is unilaterally made using the name of the nominal owner irrespective of the intent of the nominal owner, such provision shall not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu748, Mar. 26, 1985; 95Nu13531, May 31, 1996). In such cases, if the tax authority proves only that the real owner is different from the nominal owner, the burden of proving that the transfer, etc. to the nominal owner was made as a unilateral act regardless of the intent of the nominal owner ought to be the nominal owner who asserts such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu3465, Feb. 27, 1990; 90Nu50231, Oct. 10, 2909.

B) In light of the above legal principles, although it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the Plaintiff’s respective shares in the name of △△△△△ to receive the Plaintiff’s respective shares in the name of bb, h, and j’s testimony, the Plaintiff and bB did not have any specific relationship or exchange, and bB did not receive the Plaintiff’s shares in the name of b, c or hh’s respective shares in the name of 3 or h’s respective shares in the name of the Plaintiff’s company, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to use the Plaintiff’s shares in the name of b, c or h’s respective shares in the name of b, c or h’s respective shares in the name of 3 or h’s respective shares in the name of the Plaintiff’s company, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to use the Plaintiff’s shares in the name of c or h’s respective shares in the name of c or h’s respective shares in the name of h’s respective shares.

2) Whether evaluation method of stock value is lawful

A) When it is difficult to calculate the market price of the donated property as non-listed stocks as prescribed in Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Act, the value shall be assessed by the supplementary assessment method as prescribed in Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree. Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the net asset value per share shall be assessed by dividing the net asset value of the relevant corporation by the total number of issued and outstanding stocks. Article 55(1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the base date of appraisal shall be the amount obtained by subtracting liabilities from the value of the assets of the relevant corporation as of the base date of appraisal under Articles 60 through 66 of the Act. Thus, when the above supplementary assessment method provides that the net asset value per share is assessed based on the net asset value of the relevant corporation at a time other than the net asset value as of the base date of appraisal, the taxation authority shall assert and prove that there was no change in the net asset value per share between the base date of appraisal and the date of appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2)., whether the tax amount of taxation is legitimate or legitimate.

B) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant is bound to make an appraisal of the value of the instant shares as of the date of deemed donation 20,000 won as of the date of 30,000, and the value of the instant shares cannot be assessed by applying the supplementary method of appraisal stipulated in Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Decree. As of the date of deemed donation of the instant shares, the value of the instant shares cannot be assessed by 10,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won as of December 31, 200, 2000, 200,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 20,000 won and 30,000,00 won and 10,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.